feet. in the preservation alternative, and you you can see that this is difficult. we look at a steam that actually used the building and took out the back and actually removed the last 25% of the building and basically chopped the building up just to put units in front of it. the challenges are light and air that it produces but we did get 18 studio units, how none of which are the size to be a two- bedroom units. also accessibility is making this project difficult because we are trying not to do further damage to the exterior. in the adaptive reuse scenario, we actually look that keeping the front and two side walls of the building as much as we could.

this permitted us to have as many as 23 units. we assumed that the building would be set back in order to provide insurance into the building and access with a very efficient steam. we would also be leaving you with the front and side prickles for better enforced. in both cases, because it was a comparison, it did as soon the 0.75 parking places and the under a brick building and providing parking would be difficult. this does little for the neighborhood, this does not provide the 40% or does it provide any real creation of the neighborhood fabric.

>> thank you. >> i have handed you a copy of what i have to say. our white to make a projection and also -- i would like to make a correction?

the correction states that any project sponsors objectives would be partially met by providing quality housing and parking. i wish to correct that because i don't believe that from my standards that these are as qualitative the project as a new project. the first would be a lot project and essentially topping up an old building with wood work. secondly, the project that sets back in builds a new building is justin exercise in this autism -- is just an exercise in facadism.

i do not like either of these projects as preservation alternatives. any parking underneath the structure will require estivation. this would be technically in feasible and too expensive. we have a very high expense with regards to the preservation alternatives and to the departure would meet our economic feasibility threshold. thank you. >> is any additional public comment?

>> this is one of those projects coming through that has nothing in it of consequence because this is a tiered. this is very little. i would like to direct my comments to the policy issues in the market plan and in zoning and because i think that they should be there as well. the zoning and its density and reduce parking. the areas where that was done in the eastern neighborhoods were areas that had density. we said we should build the densest housing there. the city also has the most dense

transit as it happens or we have freeway accidents. this is one of them. every time we say that we will make the area more dense and then the developer says we will go to the max possible and to have parking and happens to be really good freeway access, you have a dichotomy and this is definitely the case on -- hill. when you have real expensive market housing and the areas that you have in this case and freely access, you are creating an attractive area to do a reverse commute, particularly

down the peninsula. this was not discussed. those policy issues should come up in an eir. where are you going to discuss what is the king live project, cumulative -- what is the cumulative impact? what is the idea between a straight shot up delores and onto the freeway system. you have a worse situation, this is a market rate project.

if you have a below market rate, those are of interest. >> public comment is closed. >> i think to the extent that i read over the draft incremental impact report, i think that the alternatives were presented and evaluated in a way as is required in such a report as being the partial preservation alternative for. i think that this is complete and accurately done. i don't think that this is

incumbent for an entirely different project. alternatives as suggested by being no alternative. >> commissioners, item 11 has been withdrawn, we are now on item 12 for 1027 hayes st. and this is a mandatory discretionary review of the building permit application proposing to demolish. >> good afternoon, vice president of logi --

this is a discretionary review hearing to allow the removal of one dwelling unit by demolishing the proportion of a building. this is located on the sell side of hayes street between pierce and spinous street. proposal to demolish the one- bedroom units that was constructed in 1947, this would keep approximately one had a 75 ft. for storage and utilities and would reduce the total unit count from four units to three. this does not fit within the definition of a demolition or a dwelling unit merger. the unit is being demolished and this is not being merged into another unit.

this does not have anticipation and the project will be analyzed with those -- both the merger and the criteria. the property will be closer into conformance and the density of the prescribed zoning. the building to be demolished is currently vacant. >> i wanted to apologize, i forgot to mention the final comment time. usually you repeat this after. i know you can do this for item number 10. >> i read this when i called the item. >> september 7th. this is on the record. the project sponsor.

>> good afternoon. my husband and i have lived at 1020 hayes street since april 30th, 1997. we are requesting commission to remove a nonconforming structures that we can have a garden. the structure in question was built without a permit in 1947. this was still below grade on a concrete slab. the neighbors objected strenuously. on april 7th, the committee granted approval and this is consistent with the general plan. the structure is not historically or architecturally significant.

the property is now classified and this consists of the original 89 the house. this was prior to 1947 and a one story structure in question. this is out of character with the district which is part of the immediate area. in addition, density guidelines in the planet code limit this to approximately 3712 square feet. the small loss last this not qualified. the rear yard open space requirements are violated and the size is approximately 62 feet deep. the comment on his face is 452

square feet and the existing usable open space is only 220 square feet. the code requires a minimum of one of street parking space per dwelling unit and we have none. there are also a key violations of the planning code. many have a ceiling fight of greater than 7 feet. -- a ceiling height of greater than 7 feet. such a structure would never be allowed today. the removal is supported by the neighborhood association and by our adjacent members. we would like a garden and we hope you would approve this request. >> thank you. is any public comment on this item? public comment is closed. commissioner antonini. >> i think that we will move to not accept dr and the project

will be brought into closer conformity which is two units. the edition is not historic and it is probably not hard illegal because you have a ceiling heights being being low. i would move that we do not take this and approve the project. >> seconded. >> on the motion to not take discretionary review and approve the project as proposed. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> this brings you two case number-- >> we are going to take a very

quick recess. >> i would like to welcome everyone back. we are now on item 13 for 640- 642 shotwell street. >> i would like to have the item continued. the package does not have enough staff analysis presented to us and basically the information we have as to why the project should be approved is left to the response to the dr request

er. i don't believe that the commission should be dependent upon the response for why the prejudice to be approved. this is not to say that i am for or against that at this particular time. at this particular time, that is what i am requesting. >> is that the motion? >> i will move to continue. >> until what date? >> the 16th is the next hearing. >> the 23rd is closed.

>> this will have to go to october. >> october 7th is the next available date. >> ok. >> that one need to be the date. >> >>is this your project? can you ask that we have the existing plants. -- plans?

>> yes, we will. >> i would like to add that we did talk to pilar and i thought that she sent the existing plans to everyone. >> is there a second? >> there is a second. >> i need some more direction from the commissioner. i did not hear that these are existing plans, we did not receive them. what else are we to learn? >> i would like to know the status reasoning for approval under the environmental.

the building appears to be eligible, this is exempted under the first class. i like to know the reasoning behind that. we are not presented with any staff analysis. the residential design team says. >> i believe this fell under an abbreviated discretionary review. >> it sounds like you're asking that this would be the full dr. correct. >> i might add to this

especially since this is within an area that the staff considers to be not only eligible for the california registered but also along this area and for listing in the national registry of historic places. given that kind of status, we should be privy to a little bit more staff analysis. >> if i am interpreting the rules correctly, if they commissioner wishes to have the report be more than just a brief dr, that is enough to make it such. in only supplying what was applied based on the fact that it was clearly pointed out that this did not rise to a level

that under future consideration would be brought to the commission. i think that everyone has been done the way it should be done but i understand the concern that more information is necessary based upon what commissioners a guy has brought -- commissioner sugaya has brought up. >> we are concerned about a full-blown analysis. >> what is the continuation date? >> october 7th. >> on the motion for a continuance -- >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye.

>> so move, commissioners. this will place us at public comment. at this time, members of the public may address items that are within the business of the board. >> is there any public comment? >> general comment disclosed. >> -- is closed. >> can ask about the material? >> the staff will follow up. >> i do not want to leave him hanging. >> i will not. >> the meeting is adjourned.

. >> my name is mark tieman and i'm senior councilor at pet camp, san francisco, california. we dispose of a lot of carbon-based material here, dog poop, and the more we can turn that into something viable, the better off we are. in san francisco there's more dogs than children. finding a viable use for dog poop. >> proenvironmental policies, that's a way to win hearts and minds. there are so many ways that the internet provides real access to real people and resources and that's what we're try to go accomplish. >> i was interested in technology like video production. it's interesting, you get to

create your own work and it reflects what you feel about saying things so it gives perspective on issues. >> we work really hard to develop very in depth content, but if they don't have a venue, they do not have a way to show us, then this work is only staying here inside and nobody knows the brilliance and the amazing work that the students are doing. >> the term has changed over time from a very basic who has a computer and who doesn't have a computer to now who has access to the internet, especially high speed internet, as well as the skills and the knowledge to use those tools effectively. . >> the city is charged with coming up with digital inclusion. the department of telecommunications put together a 15 member san francisco tech connect task force. we want the digital inclusion program to make sure we address

the needs of underserved vulnerable communities, not communities that are already very tech savvy. we are here to provide a, b and c to the seniors. a stands for access. b stands for basic skills and c stands for content. and unless we have all three, the monolingual chinese seniors are never going to be able to use the computer or the internet. >> a lot of the barrier is knowledge. people don't know that these computers are available to them, plus they don't know what is useful. >> there are so many businesses in the bay area that are constantly retiring their computer equipment that's perfectly good for home use. computers and internet access are helping everybody in the community and people who don't have it can come to us to help with that. one of the biggest problems we see isn't whether people can get computers through programs like ours, but whether they can understand why they need a

computer. really the biggest issue we are facing today is helping people understand the value of having a computer. >> immediately they would say can i afford a computer? i don't speak any english. how do i use it. then they will start to learn how to do email or how to go back to chinese newspaper to read all the chinese newspaper. >> a lot of the barrier still is around lack of knowledge or confusion or intimidation and not having people in their peer network who use computers in their lives. >> the important thing i learned from caminos was to improve myself personally. when i first came to caminos, i didn't know anything about computers. the second thing is i have become -- i have made some great achievements as an individual in my family and in things of the world. >> it's a real issue of self-empowerment where new immigrant families are able to communicate with their families at home, able to receive news

and information in their own home language, really become more and more connected with the world as well as connected even inside their local communities. >> if we value the diversity of our city and we value our diverse neighborhoods in the city, we need to ensure that they remain economically viable. equiping them and equiping residents in those areas with jobs that will enable them to stay in san francisco is critical to that. >> the important thing that i see here at caminos is it helps the low income community, it helps the women who wouldn't have this opportunity otherwise. >> the workers with more education in san francisco are more likely to be able to working that knowledge sector. where they are going to need that familiarity with the internet, they are going to find value with it and use it and be productive with it every day. and half of the city's population that's in the other boat is disconnected from all that potential prosperity.